*** OFFICIAL *** COVID-19 CoronaVirus Thread

[Nathan R. Jessep 5,809]

STAT News: Novavax says its Covid-19 vaccine is 90% effective, but far less so against one variant

Quote

It’s unclear whether these data will be enough for U.S. approval, or if the U.S. will wait for further data, as it appears to be doing with vaccines developed by AstraZeneca and Oxford University. Novavax said it will discuss the findings with the U.K. regulators but made no mention of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Operation Warp Speed, the U.S. government’s vaccine incubator, is running its own large U.S. trial of the Novavax vaccine.

tl;dr: Novavax says its Covid-19 vaccine (also a 2-dose shot) is 90% effective in preliminary results from a key clinical trial in the United Kingdom (15K people trial), but far less so (only 49%) against the South African variant in a separate S.A. trial (4.4K people). 

[Nathan R. Jessep 5,809]

and in non-shocking news...South African variant has confirmed arrival in the States:

South Carolina identifies the first U.S. cases of coronavirus variant first seen in South Africa

[Penguin 1,217]

1 hour ago, Nathan R. Jessep said:

STAT News: Novavax says its Covid-19 vaccine is 90% effective, but far less so against one variant

tl;dr: Novavax says its Covid-19 vaccine (also a 2-dose shot) is 90% effective in preliminary results from a key clinical trial in the United Kingdom (15K people trial), but far less so (only 49%) against the South African variant in a separate S.A. trial (4.4K people). 

I'm really concerned that the Pfizer & Moderna vaccines in their current form will also be much less effective against the SA variant

Edited January 28 by Penguin

[Nathan R. Jessep 5,809]

19 minutes ago, Penguin said:

I'm really concerned that the Pfizer & Moderna vaccines in their current form will also be much less effective against the SA variant

Yeah, I really feel like a third "booster" shot will be needed eventually. Just hoping the current vaccines will thwart spread enough that ANOTHER US-unique super-spreading variant won't evolve. 🍀

[ericttspikes 2,747]

22 minutes ago, Penguin said:

I'm really concerned that the Pfizer & Moderna vaccines in their current form will also be much less effective against the SA variant

Results of an early lab study out today seems positive, but should know more in two weeks. Either way, the mRNA platform is well suited to quickly adapt if necessary. Novavax is a protien subunit vaccine, and I don't really know much about it or how adaptable that is. I do know that they don't require deep freezing but take longer to make. My guess is that Novavax will help fill the need of lower income countries, and maybe rural US, and a majority of the US supply will stick with mRNA for efficacy and adaptability. 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-pfizer-vaccine-idUSKBN29W31M

https://www.wsj.com/articles/pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-works-against-mutations-found-in-u-k-south-africa-variants-lab-study-finds-11611802559

[ericttspikes 2,747]

The question I have about the South African variant is why isn't South Africa being decimated like the US is? In fact, South African cases are coming down rapidly. Weird.

[Doug B 7,097]

50 minutes ago, ericttspikes said:

The question I have about the South African variant is why isn't South Africa being decimated like the US is? In fact, South African cases are coming down rapidly. Weird.

You've asked a dammed good question.

I know I have nothing approaching any real answers about stuff like this. That said: one thing COVID-19 has been consistent about over the past year is defying the expectations set upon it by the general non-science press.

Strains/variants have existed since Day One. Splitting off into multiple strains was spoken of a lot during those early months, when China and then Italy were the world's COVID epicenters. Then the U.S. got in the barrel, and somewhere along the line the general press didn't report very much anymore on new strains, mutations, or any of that. And then after that ... since around Thanksgiving, it's been a non-stop barrage of alarms about "new strains!" and "variants!" -- and they all "transmit more effectively" and they're always "unsure if vaccines will still work against them".

I'm more than happy to follow the science where it leads ... but sheesh -- can the general press let the science take at least steps down the path before playing the Aliens "Game Over!" card?

[ericttspikes 2,747]

1 minute ago, Doug B said:

You've asked a dammed good question.

I know I have nothing approaching any real answers about stuff like this. That said: one thing COVID-19 has been consistent about over the past year is defying the expectations set upon it by the general non-science press.

Strains/variants have existed since Day One. Splitting off into multiple strains was spoken of a lot during those early months, when China and then Italy were the world's COVID epicenters. Then the U.S. got in the barrel, and somewhere along the line the general press didn't report very much anymore on new strains, mutations, or any of that. And then after that ... since around Thanksgiving, it's been a non-stop barrage of alarms about "new strains!" and "variants!" -- and they all "transmit more effectively" and they're always "unsure if vaccines will still work against them".

I'm more than happy to follow the science where it leads ... but sheesh -- can the general press let the science take at least steps down the path before playing the Aliens "Game Over!" card?

Thanks. It seems that the panic press about the South African strain started when Cape Town experienced a second wave in late December, but they seemed to reach their peak a few days later and has gone down significantly since then. 21,000 a day to 7,000 a day, well below their Summer peak. Yet Fauci today is very concerned about it. I guess maybe there are some weird unknown biological things in play, but I'd still expect the arrow on case counts in South Africa to be pointing up based on the panic press about it in the last few weeks. Just seems that rational science based guys like Fauci are pulling alarm bells without really knowing the answers, which in a way undermines the current vaccine effort by spreading fear. 

[belljr 11,269]

25 minutes ago, Doug B said:

You've asked a dammed good question.

I know I have nothing approaching any real answers about stuff like this. That said: one thing COVID-19 has been consistent about over the past year is defying the expectations set upon it by the general non-science press.

Strains/variants have existed since Day One. Splitting off into multiple strains was spoken of a lot during those early months, when China and then Italy were the world's COVID epicenters. Then the U.S. got in the barrel, and somewhere along the line the general press didn't report very much anymore on new strains, mutations, or any of that. And then after that ... since around Thanksgiving, it's been a non-stop barrage of alarms about "new strains!" and "variants!" -- and they all "transmit more effectively" and they're always "unsure if vaccines will still work against them".

I'm more than happy to follow the science where it leads ... but sheesh -- can the general press let the science take at least steps down the path before playing the Aliens "Game Over!" card?

This is a daily fight with my wife. The news said.... The white house said.... This news said....

[belljr 11,269]

Isn't the flu vaccine only like 50-60% effective?

If this is "only" 50% effective against that staring it still will do a lot of good

[PinkydaPimp 2,187]

dumb question.  if im getting the moderna vaccine tomorrow(29th) and my second dose is scheduled for feb 26th, is that an issue?  i heard it needs to be a 30 days apart.

[Dezbelief 804]

1 hour ago, PinkydaPimp said:

dumb question.  if im getting the moderna vaccine tomorrow(29th) and my second dose is scheduled for feb 26th, is that an issue?  i heard it needs to be a 30 days apart.

4 weeks, 28 days

[Biff84 2,925]

Did a COVID shot clinic at the retirement community near me. Extremely rewarding experience but the stories I heard were heartbreaking. I’d guess that it was close to half who told me that they knew a close friend who passed away from it. Several had lost their spouse. At the end of the day I was talking to some of younger staff (50s) and they told me more stories of staff members they lost. The worse story was a New Years Eve party attended by 6 couples. Everyone got COVID, 6 people died, 2 are in the ICU and the ones that are at home are in bad shape. It’s got me trying to figure out how I can help them even more.

[Willy 168]

J&J vaccine results this morning.  Looks more like the AstraZeneca one than the Pfizer/Moderna vaccines, which I think everyone expected. 

 

Johnson & Johnson Covid-19 vaccine is 66% effective in global trial, but 85% effective against severe disease, company says

[belljr 11,269]

17 minutes ago, Willy said:

J&J vaccine results this morning.  Looks more like the AstraZeneca one than the Pfizer/Moderna vaccines, which I think everyone expected. 

 

Johnson & Johnson Covid-19 vaccine is 66% effective in global trial, but 85% effective against severe disease, company says

All in on J&J - one shot done.  Sign me up

They were only shooting for 70-80% anyway

Edited January 29 by belljr

[bcat01 291]

14 minutes ago, Willy said:

J&J vaccine results this morning.  Looks more like the AstraZeneca one than the Pfizer/Moderna vaccines, which I think everyone expected. 

 

Johnson & Johnson Covid-19 vaccine is 66% effective in global trial, but 85% effective against severe disease, company says

Sounds like this would be considered a good vaccine if we were not comparing it to the other 2 vaccines.  Maybe younger less susceptible people could get this vaccine and others could take the mRNA vaccines for greater protection.  

[themeanmachine 274]

29 minutes ago, Willy said:

J&J vaccine results this morning.  Looks more like the AstraZeneca one than the Pfizer/Moderna vaccines, which I think everyone expected. 

 

Johnson & Johnson Covid-19 vaccine is 66% effective in global trial, but 85% effective against severe disease, company says

And 100% effective against hospitalization and death, and seems to be effective against the new strains.  Fantastic news!

[Capella 31,406]

4 minutes ago, themeanmachine said:

And 100% effective against hospitalization and death, and seems to be effective against the new strains.  Fantastic news!

And every news headline I am reading buried this news. So frustrating. I swear these ghouls want to keep covid going for the few clicks. 

[Willy 168]

Also of note, the J&J trials included trials in South Africa

Quote

"The level of protection against moderate and severe COVID-19 infection was 72% in the US, 66% in Latin America and 57% in South Africa, 28 days post-vaccination."

That's some indication that this vaccine is less effective against SA variant, but they are still effective, so that's good.

 

[themeanmachine 274]

From a Bloomberg article on the J&J vaccine:

Quote

Based on the result, J&J plans to file for an emergency-use authorization in the U.S. next week. The drug giant’s top scientist said this month that he expects a clearance in March, and that it would have product ready to ship then. 

March?? I'm sure there's a lot of data analysis that needs to be done to validate safety and effectiveness for emergency use authorization. Is it not possible to work nights and weekends and get this done in 2 weeks?  Every day matters here.

[jobarules 750]

12 minutes ago, themeanmachine said:

From a Bloomberg article on the J&J vaccine:

March?? I'm sure there's a lot of data analysis that needs to be done to validate safety and effectiveness for emergency use authorization. Is it not possible to work nights and weekends and get this done in 2 weeks?  Every day matters here.

Yeah I dont get it. The others got approved much quicker.

[belljr 11,269]

word on the street is J&J has tons ready to go in a warehouse

[worrierking 1,497]

A new daily high in U.S. vaccines yesterday with 1.7 million administered.  There is still chaos, but in comparison to the rest of the world, we are doing quite well. Demand will continue to outstrip supply, so continued angst is likely.

Did anyone post this?  Forgive me if it was mentioned.  Hard data from Israel on vaccines and their effectiveness so far. https://spinstrangenesscharm.wordpress.com/2021/01/28/covid19-breaking-news-january-28-2021-first-preliminary-data-on-effectiveness-of-israeli-vaccination-campaign/

Worrierqueen had no further complications from initial dose.  Mild headache immediately afterward and then arm and upper chest pain for 24-hours.  She's 100% fine this morning.

[Willy 168]

My wife finally got her second dose of Pfizer vaccine today.  She had an appointment a couple weeks ago, but missed it and wasn't sure she'd even get the 2nd dose due to a late rash that started over a week after the 1st dose.  That cleared up.  Doctors said she can get the 2nd dose still.  It was 38 days since the first dose.

PSA:   CDC says it's OK to get your 2nd dose of either Pfizer/Moderna vaccine up to 42 days after the first.  Life happens and you may miss that second dose, just go get it as soon as you can before day 42 and you should be fine.  

[Doug B 7,097]

1 hour ago, Capella said:

And every news headline I am reading buried this news. So frustrating. I swear these ghouls want to keep covid going for the few clicks. 

Yep. Was listening to CNN news on the radio this morning ... more "variants!" scaremongering. There was a medical guest on who was speaking equivocally with a "we need to learn more" stance. Just seems that the popular media will take researchers' general hesitancy to make a firm call as allowing enough room to push one narrative or another.

[Willy 168]

11 minutes ago, Doug B said:

1 hour ago, Capella said:

And every news headline I am reading buried this news. So frustrating. I swear these ghouls want to keep covid going for the few clicks. 

Yep. Was listening to CNN news on the radio this morning ... more "variants!" scaremongering. There was a medical guest on who was speaking equivocally with a "we need to learn more" stance. Just seems that the popular media will take researchers' general hesitancy to make a firm call as allowing enough room to push one narrative or another.

 

It's the old:  The glass is half full/empty thing.  Why quibble, It's actually both.  

However the media want's to tell you there's a chip on the rim and you're going to get a cut and bleed to death.  That get's clicks

 

Edited January 29 by Willy

[jobarules 750]

1 hour ago, Capella said:

And every news headline I am reading buried this news. So frustrating. I swear these ghouls want to keep covid going for the few clicks. 

NY Post headline: "Johnson & Johnson vaccine comes up just short"

[belljr 11,269]

1 hour ago, jobarules said:

Yeah I dont get it. The others got approved much quicker.

For what its worth - that March date in that article is from a quote the guy gave 1/13  so timieline still not definite

 

Also - fwiw - i have some small insider knowledge but not 100% in the know

Edited January 29 by belljr

[IvanKaramazov 22,547]

1 hour ago, Doug B said:

Yep. Was listening to CNN news on the radio this morning ... more "variants!" scaremongering. There was a medical guest on who was speaking equivocally with a "we need to learn more" stance. Just seems that the popular media will take researchers' general hesitancy to make a firm call as allowing enough room to push one narrative or another.

This, and also I'm noticing more and more stories along the lines of "Just because everybody gets vaccinated doesn't mean things will go back to normal" which at this point is just empty scare-mongering for clicks.  Good news apparently doesn't sell as well as bad news.

[The Commish 13,925]

On 1/27/2021 at 11:53 PM, [icon] said:

Cancer drug 27.5 times more effective antiviral than remdesivir vs COVID including SA Strain. 

"In addition, in two preclinical models of COVID-19, plitidepsin showed a 100-fold reduction in viral replication in the lungs and demonstrated an ability to reduce lung inflammation."

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2021/01/419686/cancer-drug-shows-potent-activity-lab-against-sars-cov-2-including-b117-variant

Another article on the same topic:

https://www.fiercebiotech.com/research/cancer-drug-extracted-from-sea-squirt-better-inhibits-covid-19-than-remdesivir-lab?fbclid=IwAR3JAS1grtaOf77dUSd6rhwicViP6P_-oUe4VLf9ffVrjU1-CcwK5CtjzqI

I'm going to take a second to brag....the sea squirt model they are using is the one my wife spent 7 years creating at Winthrop University in conjunction with the guys in California.  As part of that journey, I got to go to Cali and help harvest the sea squirts they use in that research.  I can't explain how freakin' cool it is to see something my wife worked on several years ago being a piece of the puzzle used to research the different ways we might be able to combat this virus.  I'm pretty proud of Mrs Commish today.  

[Leeroy Jenkins 3,041]

Doctor's Farmacy - Vaccine Podcast

 

This podcast is very informative.  Short version -- get the vaccine, but we are still wearing a mask for a LONG time.  Ain't no 2019 normal to go back to.

[Nathan R. Jessep 5,809]

24 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

This, and also I'm noticing more and more stories along the lines of "Just because everybody gets vaccinated doesn't mean things will go back to normal" which at this point is just empty scare-mongering for clicks.  Good news apparently doesn't sell as well as bad news.

Well, not that there's not a lot of encouraging news, there certainly is; however, we are far from out of the woods yet. We are racing variants with higher contagiousness, complete lack of a vaccine rollout plan, possible supply shortages and in-fighting, to name a few challenges. Certain media outlets definitely sensationalize for clicks, but I don't think it's all scare-mongering either. Some of the information coming out is just not trending in the direction of good. IDK. Just MHO. 

[Senor Schmutzig 487]

21 hours ago, Leeroy Jenkins said:

My wife is freaked out thinking she has covid because she feels a little tired/achy today.  We have not gone anywhere and been especially careful.  But this past weekend, someone from AAA was at my house due to a car issue and he only had on a gaiter thing that kept falling below his nose and was inside the car.  So she thinks he gave her covid. . . . 

My wife has had COVID at least 12-15 times over the past 10 months. 

[Capella 31,406]

5 minutes ago, Nathan R. Jessep said:

Well, not that there's not a lot of encouraging news, there certainly is; however, we are far from out of the woods yet. We are racing variants with higher contagiousness, complete lack of a vaccine rollout plan, possible supply shortages and in-fighting, to name a few challenges. Certain media outlets definitely sensationalize for clicks, but I don't think it's all scare-mongering either. Some of the information coming out is just not trending in the direction of good. IDK. Just MHO. 

I think the news has been excellent. These vaccines are out way faster than we could have imagined, they are WAY better than even people like Fauci thought they would be and deaths/hospitalizations are trending down. Sure, the rollout has sucked but that administration is gone now and hopefully it gets smoother fast. If you would have told me any of this last June I would have been giddy. 
 

Journalism now is sensationalism. I have a journalism degree. I grew up devouring newspapers every day. But now they often bury the most important news into the story to get clicks on their website. It sucks, but it’s the way it is. 

Edited January 29 by Capella

[Nathan R. Jessep 5,809]

3 minutes ago, Capella said:

I think the news has been excellent. These vaccines are out way faster than we could have imagined, they are WAY better than even people like Fauci thought they would be and deaths/hospitalizations are trending down. Sure, the rollout has sucked but that administration is gone now and hopefully it gets smoother fast. If you would have told me any of this last June I would have been giddy. 
 

Journalism now is sensationalism. I have a journalism degree. I grew up devouring newspapers every day. But now they often bury the most important news into the story to get clicks on their website. It sucks, but it’s the way it is. 

I'm hopeful also, but we aren't there just yet. Just looking at local rollout (and statewide), they haven't even announced yet when they will open the next (and bigger) tier of those who can get vaccinated. 

And definitely agree with the latter. My point was just that sometimes beneath the "scare" headlines there is actually some reason for concern. Not panic necessarily, but concern. 

[Capella 31,406]

1 minute ago, Nathan R. Jessep said:

I'm hopeful also, but we aren't there just yet. Just looking at local rollout (and statewide), they haven't even announced yet when they will open the next (and bigger) tier of those who can get vaccinated. 

And definitely agree with the latter. My point was just that sometimes beneath the "scare" headlines there is actually some reason for concern. Not panic necessarily, but concern. 

Right, definitely not there yet but I think we are on a clear path to getting there. A while back I didn’t see that happening at all anytime soon. 

Edited January 29 by Capella

[gianmarco 28,983]

1 hour ago, jobarules said:

NY Post headline:....

That's your problem.

[Willy 168]

Novavax also released early vaccine trial results.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/novavax-covid-vaccine-trial-data-variants/

 

I don't understand the SA variant results much.  That trial included 30% of people who previously had covid,(why the heck??) and apparently include a load of people who have HIV - so they parsed out those results to make it look better.

[AAABatteries 25,232]

37 minutes ago, Leeroy Jenkins said:

Doctor's Farmacy - Vaccine Podcast

 

This podcast is very informative.  Short version -- get the vaccine, but we are still wearing a mask for a LONG time.  Ain't no 2019 normal to go back to.

Clifford’s Notes?  Is this more due to those not getting vaccinated, the vaccines not being “good enough” or something else?

[IvanKaramazov 22,547]

48 minutes ago, Leeroy Jenkins said:

Doctor's Farmacy - Vaccine Podcast

 

This podcast is very informative.  Short version -- get the vaccine, but we are still wearing a mask for a LONG time.  Ain't no 2019 normal to go back to.

I give widespread masking about six more months, give or take.  Mask compliance is already spotty now -- you can forget it once vaccines are widely available.  I'm not going to listed to a random 2-hour podcast (obviously), but this sounds exactly like the please-click-this-link take I mentioned a couple of posts earlier.

[Leeroy Jenkins 3,041]

12 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I give widespread masking about six more months, give or take.  Mask compliance is already spotty now -- you can forget it once vaccines are widely available.  I'm not going to listed to a random 2-hour podcast (obviously), but this sounds exactly like the please-click-this-link take I mentioned a couple of posts earlier.

He goes pretty deep into the various studies. 

[Leeroy Jenkins 3,041]

29 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:

Clifford’s Notes?  Is this more due to those not getting vaccinated, the vaccines not being “good enough” or something else?

The vaccines are great, but do not prevent infection or spread. So basically, without mask and social distancing, while the percentages for severe disease and death will be down, the volume will still be overwhelming. But who knows. Good listen though — not the host, the guest. 
 

Basically the vaccines are really effective preventing spread from respiratory system into the blood stream, but you can still catch it and the virus still will colonize and replicate in the nasopharyngeal tissue. 

Edited January 29 by Leeroy Jenkins

[Capella 31,406]

8 minutes ago, Leeroy Jenkins said:

The vaccines are great, but do not prevent infection or spread. 

My understanding was that had not been fully determined yet. 

[ericttspikes 2,747]

14 minutes ago, Leeroy Jenkins said:

The vaccines are great, but do not prevent infection or spread. So basically, without mask and social distancing, while the percentages for severe disease and death will be down, the volume will still be overwhelming. But who knows. Good listen though — not the host, the guest. 
 

Basically the vaccines are really effective preventing spread from respiratory system into the blood stream, but you can still catch it and the virus still will colonize and replicate in the nasopharyngeal tissue. 

Keep an eye on Israel for the answer to this. Pfizer gave them a deal on the vaccine in return for data. As of a week ago, in a small study, there was optimism that it would reduce spread.

 

Peter Weber

January 20, 2021

The COVID-19 vaccine developed by Pfizer and BioNTech is 95 percent effective at protecting against infection, large human trials found, but there is no conclusive evidence yet that the vaccines prevent transmission of the new coronavirus. "Early findings from Oxford/AstraZeneca revealed its vaccine could have some effect on transmitting the virus, while similar results have also been reported by Pfizer/BioNTech," Reuters reports. But "scientists do not yet know whether COVID-19 vaccinations will reduce transmission because this was not tested in the trials."

A new study from Israel's Sheba Medical Center in Tel Hashomer suggested that the Pfizer vaccine does, in fact, reduce transmission. The small study of 102 medical workers found that after the second dose of the vaccine, 100 of the subjects had significantly higher levels of antibodies than even people who recovered from severe COVID-19 infections, The Jerusalem Post reports.

"The results of the survey are in line with Pfizer's experiment and even better than expected," said Prof. Gili Regev-Yochay, director of Sheba's Infectious Disease Epidemiology Unit. "I expect that the survey results of the other employees participating will be similar. There is certainly reason for optimism." It isn't clear how long immunity will last, and the results are preliminary, but Regev-Yochay said it appears to her that fully vaccinate people won't shed the virus, meaning they won't pass it on to others.

https://news.yahoo.com/israeli-study-suggests-pfizer-covid-143104894.html

[Leeroy Jenkins 3,041]

25 minutes ago, ericttspikes said:

Keep an eye on Israel for the answer to this. Pfizer gave them a deal on the vaccine in return for data. As of a week ago, in a small study, there was optimism that it would reduce spread.

 

Peter Weber

January 20, 2021

The COVID-19 vaccine developed by Pfizer and BioNTech is 95 percent effective at protecting against infection, large human trials found, but there is no conclusive evidence yet that the vaccines prevent transmission of the new coronavirus. "Early findings from Oxford/AstraZeneca revealed its vaccine could have some effect on transmitting the virus, while similar results have also been reported by Pfizer/BioNTech," Reuters reports. But "scientists do not yet know whether COVID-19 vaccinations will reduce transmission because this was not tested in the trials."

A new study from Israel's Sheba Medical Center in Tel Hashomer suggested that the Pfizer vaccine does, in fact, reduce transmission. The small study of 102 medical workers found that after the second dose of the vaccine, 100 of the subjects had significantly higher levels of antibodies than even people who recovered from severe COVID-19 infections, The Jerusalem Post reports.

"The results of the survey are in line with Pfizer's experiment and even better than expected," said Prof. Gili Regev-Yochay, director of Sheba's Infectious Disease Epidemiology Unit. "I expect that the survey results of the other employees participating will be similar. There is certainly reason for optimism." It isn't clear how long immunity will last, and the results are preliminary, but Regev-Yochay said it appears to her that fully vaccinate people won't shed the virus, meaning they won't pass it on to others.

https://news.yahoo.com/israeli-study-suggests-pfizer-covid-143104894.html

I think I heard this as it reduces spread, but won’t prevent it because the vaccine essentially isn’t attacking virus in the nose/throat. 

[Doug B 7,097]

45 minutes ago, Leeroy Jenkins said:

The vaccines are great, but do not prevent infection or spread (LJ quoting a podcast - db)

[aimed at the podcasters, not Leeroy Jenkins]

IMHO ... FAR too much is being made of this. The vaccine is not supposed to "prevent infection and spread" in society ... it's supposed to prevent infection in the individual who gets the vaccine.

So, it takes the accumulation of individual actions and a critical mass to be reached. At a point, fewer infected people does, in fact, lower collective infection and spread among a populace. The virus doesn't have agency to spread on it's own and it won't spread by magic.

[/aimed at the podcasters, not Leeroy Jenkins]

[BigJim® 1,089]

4 minutes ago, Doug B said:

[aimed at the podcasters, not Leeroy Jenkins]

IMHO ... FAR too much is being made of this. The vaccine is not supposed to "prevent infection and spread" in society ... it's supposed to prevent infection in the individual who gets the vaccine.

So, it takes the accumulation of individual actions and a critical mass to be reached. At a point, fewer infected people does, in fact, lower collective infection and spread among a populace. The virus doesn't have agency to spread on it's own and it won't spread by magic.

[/aimed at the podcasters, not Leeroy Jenkins]

I'm not sure that too much is being made of it. I think it is necessary for people to understand how vax does/does not work. Case in point, I have avoided some in my circle because I know them not to be safe in their conduct. I got a text saying they will be getting vaxed and we should get together soon. If their vax leaves me exposed to their conduct, obviously that's info I'll want to understand.

[Doug B 7,097]

3 minutes ago, BigJim® said:

I'm not sure that too much is being made of it. I think it is necessary for people to understand how vax does/does not work. Case in point, I have avoided some in my circle because I know them not to be safe in their conduct. I got a text saying they will be getting vaxed and we should get together soon. If their vax leaves me exposed to their conduct, obviously that's info I'll want to understand.

I understand what you're saying. You should text them back "Once I've gotten vaccinated, you're on!"

What it sounded like the podcasters were saying (didn't listen to it) was that COVID would keep spreading exactly as if the vaccines did not exist, not matter how many people get vaccinated. I believe that to be wrong.

[Leeroy Jenkins 3,041]

15 minutes ago, Doug B said:

[aimed at the podcasters, not Leeroy Jenkins]

IMHO ... FAR too much is being made of this. The vaccine is not supposed to "prevent infection and spread" in society ... it's supposed to prevent infection in the individual who gets the vaccine.

So, it takes the accumulation of individual actions and a critical mass to be reached. At a point, fewer infected people does, in fact, lower collective infection and spread among a populace. The virus doesn't have agency to spread on it's own and it won't spread by magic.

[/aimed at the podcasters, not Leeroy Jenkins]

But apparently these vaccines don't prevent infection.  But cuts the severity down to a cold or mild flu essentially.  Less severe infection, means less viral load, which means reduction in spread.  Totally.  But this isn't going to be irradiated like the measles apparently.  

[Leeroy Jenkins 3,041]

Just now, Doug B said:

I understand what you're saying. You should text them back "Once I've gotten vaccinated, you're on!"

What it sounded like the podcasters were saying (didn't listen to it) was that COVID would keep spreading exactly as if the vaccines did not exist, not matter how many people get vaccinated. I believe that to be wrong.

Not what they said.  The rate will be lower, but even if it were cut by 1/3, without masks etc., the numbers will still be high.  It actually was pretty interesting.